GTA Myths Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Welcome to the GTA Myths Wiki: Community Noticeboard

Talk page rules apply here.

This noticeboard is for discussion and voting on changes to the wiki, reporting vandalism and wiki rule breaking, and reporting bad or unfair behavior from GTA Myths Wiki staff.

For requests for promotion, please go to GTA Myths Wiki:Requests for promotion.

Voting Requirements

Since voting about a change can cause arguments, here are the rules.

• Every User can cast a vote (exceptions may apply, see Bureaucrat Only Decisions).
• Anyone can start a topic for a community vote.
• Please be civil when voting, and never condemn another user's vote.
• Voting usually lasts 3 to 5 days.
• To vote or add a request you must have at least 100 edits, have been an active user on the wiki for at least one month, and be in good standing with no Blocks within the past month on your record.

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5

Active Requests

Bigfoot - POSSIBLE to UNLIKELY

Well, after so much of debating, I think we can change existence label of Bigfoot in San Andreas. It has already been proven to not to be so "possible". Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 10:55, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes, and after a good amount of time we should get it even more down. - Mantiix (talk) 14:20, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
• No. I think it should stay same. - StrangeThingsGonnaHappen 15:00, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Well, after so many years of Bigfoot sightings, there was no visual proof, only text-proof. In so many years, Bigfoot should've been already proven because we have so many myth hunters, they must've had a visual proof that cointains something real, but no, the hoax still goes and goes, no proof to support with. Nope, I don't say we should give up looking after it, but for me it's obvious. I kinda believe it was in beta or older versions of the game, but we are talking about the current version. - Mantiix (talk) 14:20, March 12, 2017 (UTC)
• While there is no clear visual proof of Bigfoot, there are many references to it in the game such as its footprints and still unexplained sightings and occurences that can indicate some creature is roaming the woods.Who would have thought Killer Cowboy could be discovered after 10 years of searching? - StrangeThingsGonnaHappen 15:00, March 12, 2017 (UTC)

Inactive Requests

Request closed as Unsuccessful by Boomer8 (Contact) 23:19, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

New Edit Track

Hey, so I was thinking about a new edit track for "Cleanup" category. I know it may sound stupid, but if it would be implemented, then it would be easy to see users actually cleaning the pages. I know some users may get the badges accidentally by just adding some video investigations or just adding images + the edit may NOT be counted as soon as the category is removed by the edit, but well, let's try! Anyways, vote yes or no. Thanks. Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 02:08, January 25, 2017 (UTC)
P.S: No, I don't want to make pointsgaming easier or anything like that. I have just thought of a new track.

Votes

• Unsure - JakVenomHD 08:45 January 26, 2017 (UTC)
• No - Gunshow ^{(T, E)} 20:08, February 3, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Well, Indep, I don't want to comment on your editing behavior as of late (we all make mistakes) but this just seems like a thinly veiled way at obtaining more leaderboard points. Plus this is inefficient, as removing the Cleanup template removes the associated category. Thus, this means articles have to be edited twice in order to gain 1 edit on the Cleanup track. -Gunshow ^{(T, E)}

Closed as Archives Only by Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 02:55, January 21, 2017 (UTC)

Two voting changes: Archives template and Voting template

So I have been developing two changes that would apply on voting pages like this one and Requests for Promotion.

Archives Template

The {{Archives}} template is something I've borrowed from the GTA Wiki, but added some extra parameters for our pages (like the 2016 election.) I've currently placed one on the RfP page as an example as to what it will look like. I don't like the current location, and that is something that can definitely be decided on.

Voting Templates

The voting templates are {{Yes}}, {{Neutral}}, and {{No}}, that represent colored and bolded text for votes. I think the colored text goes a long way for ease on the eyes, especially on popular votes where text just merges together and becomes hard to read. Now, it will be easy to distinguish votes. They even have an extra pipe for extrenuating circumstances, like a vote reason. (ex. Not Yet.) The bold will also help, because it can be hard for mobile users to format their votes correctly (ahem MHM.) This is an easy, only 4 brackets, change that will improve the Wiki in a big way.

How to Vote

• Yes if you like both.
• Archives or Voting if you only like one.
• No if you don't like both.

And feel free to use the templates in your vote... that's why I made them! --Gunshow ^{(T, E)} 06:21, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 06:32, December 31, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes --Sasquatch101 (talk) 08:25, January 3, 2017 (UTC)
• Archives - Boomer8 (Contact) 01:06, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
• Archives - JakVenomHD (Message) 01:56, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Obvious Yes, the archives will be within the reach of hand now, not like it is now, so I will not have to go through this "Archives" page. Also the colored votes is a very good idea, but now to all mobile users: Set in Preferences to use Classic Editor, then coding will be easy :p Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 06:32, December 31, 2016 (UTC)
• The Archive template looks good. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 08:25, January 3, 2017 (UTC)
• I too like the archive template but the voting one is too much. Since staffers already have colored signatures, I think the colored votes makes the page too colorful. Plus I don't think newcomers will use it. Boomer8 (Contact) 01:06, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

Request closed as Unsuccessful by --Sasquatch101 (talk) 00:24, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

Policy changes and new policy

I, along with Indep, have thought of several changes and new things to our outdated Policy. Here they go:

1st – Label Vandalism

• Weak Vandalism: If editor changes existence label without a CNB request, first offense will result in a warning explaining to not do so. On the second offense, editor will get a infinite editing block. Label changes must be discussed through CNB only.
  

2nd – Bureaucrat-only Votes

• No Bureaucrat–only votes except for Bureaucrat requests.
  

3rd – Staff Quantity

• Minimizing spots for staff members: 

• Patrollers from 6 to 4

• Administrators from 5 to 4

• Bureaucrats from N/A to 3 Reason: our community is too small to have as many as 6 Patrollers and 5 Administrators.
  

4th – Role Swap When a Patroller is way more active and important editor, than most inactive Administrator, Patroller can set up a "Role Swap", in which, he would write why he is a better choice than the inactive/barely active Admin, and if all users agree, the Patroller will be promoted to Admin, and Admin will be demoted to a Patroller, simply a role swap.

• However, the role swap will only work if the admin was at least 2 months admin and the patroller met the requirements of the administrator. On that kind of CNB, only staff except the one patroller and the administrator will be allowed to vote. Others will only comment. Such a CNB will last 1 weak or until it's too obvious.

• Role swaps from a normal user to patroller/administrator to bureaucrat are not part of this idea. And if the swap request isn't successful, the patroller will be able to try in 2 months again.
• Mantiix (talk) 18:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

How to vote

Instead of writing just Yes or No, write the numbers of the changes you agree on. Example:
*1; 2; 4 – (Sign)
If you agree on all of those, write Yes and if you disagree on all of those, then write No.
Voting till 01.01.2017.

Votes

This discussion is a Bureaucrat Only Vote. Any user may leave a comment.

• No - Boomer8 (Contact) 01:05, December 19, 2016 (UTC)
• No --Sasquatch101 (talk) 00:24, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Our old Policy needs a big change Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 13:35, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
• Three is a good policy, especially with the current state of the Wiki. As for the others, it just seems like Mant is trying to squeeze more power out of his admin position (removing B-only votes, giving another reason to hand out infinite blocks.) Role Swap just sounds like something ready to be abused by cronyism and railroading. -Gunshow ^{(T, E)} 17:31, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, Gunshow, I think B-only votes should be ALMOST completely removed, because in such a small community we should let the normal users decide more. Well and re-create staff only decisions if the requests aren't ordinary Mantiix (talk) 17:53, December 18, 2016 (UTC)
• I can't seem to understand why we all aren't on the same page here. Serving as an admin, you should be aware that changing the policy is to be voted on by the bureaucrats only. If that weren't the case, new and unfair rules could be implemented into the policy and the wiki would be thrown into chaos.

As for the other suggestions put forth, I think Gunshow gave an accurate description of my concerns. The Role Swap idea could become corrupt and I think it could be easily misused. As for the new vandalism approach, we try to encourage editing and contribution on the GTA Myths Wiki; not intimidate newcomers.

For the staff quantity, I think the current limits are just fine. The wiki is a little slow right now, but it will pick up in activity in the future, and those empty positions will be filled up in no time. Its better to have open positions than not enough. Boomer8 (Contact) 01:05, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

• First off this request is not valid, as Wiki Policy new/old/proposed is issued by Bureaucrats and is not voted on by the community (see: Policy Bureaucrat only votes). The suggestion of abolishing B'crat only votes screams of a power grab and a complete disregard for how the wiki is structured which has made it such a successful web site. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 00:24, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

Avatars for User of the Month

Closed as Successful by Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 16:16, December 13, 2016 (UTC)

In the Good Old Days(TM), it was standard practice to add a user's avatar along with their username in the User of the Month section. As you can see, though, this has gone away. This leaves us with a bit of a problem - an awkward, giant mass of empty space on the front page. In fact, the problem has gotten so bad that a new section was added just to fill in the extra space. This means there are two solutions; reinstate the avatars, or just get rid of that giant wall of nothing. Instead of Yes or No, vote for Avatars or Removal of Text. --Gunshow ^{(T, E)}

Votes

• Avatars Indep ^{(Wanna map?|Wat I'm doing?)} 11:06, December 4, 2016 (UTC)
• Avatars The Godson wuz here (talk) 15:53, December 13, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Anything that makes the wikia look the way it did in 2014 is a good idea. Just don't delete the community birthdays section. It's helpful.

Beta Leftovers Individual Page

Closed as Unsuccessful by Boomer8 (Contact) 17:05, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

I found out that we could actually have separate pages for beta leftovers rather than having one page with all of the leftovers as this will firstly increase our page count, secondly will look better as we...........oh for the love of. True story : I already made a req about it yesterday but someone probably deleted it so I can't be bothered to write it all over again. So just vote whether the page should be separated or not. The real reason is, we only have a BL for GTA IV, not for any other games. So I was thinking we should just make seperate pages for it rather than have stub BL pages of all games. Vote on! AwesomeBoy (contact) 07:27, September 17, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - JakVenomHD 08:28, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• No - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:01, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Boomer8 (Contact) 19:15, September 26, 2016 (UTC)
• No--MythHunter 007 ^Talk 11:56, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - The Godson wuz here (talk) 13:17, October 6, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I was just wondering why the bottom half of the whole text was bold, my eyes where tingeling from all that, anyways I think this has a fair shot. - JakVenomHD 08:27, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• We should make more Beta pages for other games, but making an individual page for each leftover isn't necessary. Some leftovers are different types of guns for example. Boomer8 (Contact) 19:15, September 26, 2016 (UTC)
• Just like you pointed out, it would increase our page count. Plus, BETA leftovers go hand to hand with myths and legends. I think it wouldn't hurt to make specific pages for them. Also, if we are just going to leave the page like that, we might aswell just copy and paste the whole page from GTA Wikia. (Although I'm against this idea, since we need some originality.). - The Godson wuz here (talk) 13:17, October 6, 2016 (UTC)

Banning Enemy Lists

Closed as Unsuccessful by Boomer8 (Contact) 03:54, September 26, 2016 (UTC) So, after seeing a few peoples wall pages, I have seen some rather horrifying things. (Mainly independent though. No offense). The enemy list insults this wikis fellow users. Almost as if telling them to leave. I think that they should be banned to prevent another incident like the one that just happened. My question is, what is the only point of using them? They just make you look like an asshole. I find them very insulting to anyone on them. - Emma

Votes

• Yes ~ AwesomeBoy (contact) 12:17, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes ~ MHM, September 17, 2016
• No - Mant 12:26, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• NO - --AndreyFD^Talk 12:28, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• No Indep (talk) 12:34, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - JakVenomHD 14:19, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - Monk ^Talk 19:10, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:40, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
• No - The Godson wuz here (talk) 13:27, September 18, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• As she said, it is quite offensive and later on could disrupt everything or to the very least something. AwesomeBoy (contact) 12:17, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• I made it to show from who users shall be away Indep (talk) 12:34, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• If they don't like it, they can simply remove themselves from the list. It's allowed. If a user wants to say a opinion about other users, it's allowed and it should be. Friends list make people look like nice and good users, there should be an opposite too. Mant 14:37, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• This is utterly pathetic. This just about defines this wiki as a whole. This should not need to be a request, and if anything, it just goes to show how ridiculously childish you really all are. I don't see a problem in A) having an enemy list and b) not having an enemy list. I also don't think A) people should be bothered to make one or B) be bothered to be on one. This doesn't get a "yes" or "no" vote from me, as I've just about had enough of how ridiculous things get around here. I'm not against the user who set up this request (please sign by the way), I'm against the users who thought of creating them in the first place. It's stupid. Grow up, the lot of you. Monk ^Talk 19:10, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
• We banned them on GTA Wiki years ago because they just spread hate through the wiki, and as we all know that is something that can easily spread in this community. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:40, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
• Let's ban the freedom of speech! That should be fun, right? The Godson wuz here (talk) 13:27, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • To be fair, what Freedom of Speech doesn't is that anyone can say anything about anyone with the intentions of hurting their feelings. Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever you like without anyone stopping you, but as already hinted, that "whatever" value is limited by the meaning. Monk ^Talk 14:13, September 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • "Hurting feelings" is not really a reason for banning enemy lists. If hurt feelings would actually be a crime the six sevens of earth's population would be locked up. Emma came here from other wikia's and acts worse than 'Lores. In the span of one month of "socialism" she made a vote for basically banning the free speech on your profile page, and got one user blocked, and demoted another one. But I'll quote Kermit the Redneck, and say that's none of my business. (Insert my signature here - Slash)

Contents on the Main Page

Closed as Unsuccessful by Boomer8 (Contact) 03:54, September 26, 2016 (UTC) Usually, on some wikias, contents on the main page are common, I think we should have them on the main page. It's easier to navigate, for example here, at my wiki, there are content boxes at the top, we should have "Myths and Legends in GTA SA" "IV", etc.. So leave your votes. --AndreyFD (talk) 17:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Indep (talk) 10:15, September 10, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Boomer8 (Contact) 19:04, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Mant (Contact) 8:31, September 10, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes--MythHunter 007 ^Talk 07:17, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
• No --Sasquatch101 (talk) 18:59, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• The wiki's home page is beginning to look a little out of date, so I think this would both modernize it, and make it easier for new users to see where the M+L pages are. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
• It will be cool nice detail to the page, but it also will help new users, as Vault said. - Indep (talk) 10:15, September 10, 2016 (UTC)
• If you look at the "Portals" section on the Main Page we have links to 19 pages. I think that would be way too many boxes if we were to have that on the Main Page. Boomer8 (Contact) 19:04, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem necessary. Also as Boomer mentioned we have a lot more portals than the example shown. If we added all of the portals (i.e. Myths and Legends...) the page would look too busy.--Sasquatch101 (talk) 18:59, September 16, 2016 (UTC)

New Modern Staff Banners

Closed as Unsuccessful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:25, September 6, 2016 (UTC) The staff banners look straight out of 2006 and theyre pulled right from gta wiki. Its time for a design update and for us to do our own thing. Ive suggested this before, but this time Ive done all the work. All the new templates are now color coded to match the username color links and they function just the same as the current ones, including the automatic inactive user functions. Ive also already installed the required css templates. They are located here and here so they will need to be protected if this gets votes. - BiggestShip65 15:33, August 30, 2016 (UTC) All templates are ready to be copied and pasted and will work right away.

• Patroller
• Administrator
• Bureaucrat

The new updated images here, here and here will need to be protected also if this is voted up. EDIT: Oh yeah and dont worry about Refined appearing just before Message Me, that wont be there if this replaces the existing templates.

Votes

• No - Monk ^Talk 15:56, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Mant ^Talk 15:57, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 16:50, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - MHM August 30, 2016
• No (for now) --Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:11, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes ~ Gunshow ^{(T, E)} 13:57, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - Boomer8 (Contact) 06:53, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Totally disregarding this wiki's current color schemes among over stylisation. The current banners are fine, albeit the background color could probably do with a change and the images do really need a rethink. Monk ^Talk 15:56, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Same as Monk. Mant ^Talk 15:56, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Just realized there is a mistake somewhere in the templates that extend the box to encompass all a profile pages content. i dont think its gonna to matter anyway BiggestShip65 16:30, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed this little problem and all works fine now. First dumb mistake Ive made in a while. this is why you dont edit at 3am. BiggestShip65 14:46, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
• I think the style is pretty cool, but like Monk said, it does disregard current color schemes. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 16:50, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• I'll admit that the color scheme doesn't match, but I like them. Maybe if they had green, white, and black in them, everyone else would vote yes. MHM August 30, 2016
• I wouldn't mind updating the staff banners but the ones proposed need to be tweaked. The Myths wiki has a black background, so I think a lighter color would be better than stark black for the background of the staff banners as the black on black blends in together. Also I think the Bureaucrat banner should be a little more golden than the one proposed. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:11, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
• I'm only leaning towards Yes because I still think the template has some problems, but those can obviously be solved using a little something called the Edit button. Oh yeah, and watching everyone parrot Monk over the color issue is pretty damn funny, considering we have bright red, prussian blue, and green, which about as far away from the Wiki's color scheme, at least these follow the staff colors. I get it, coming up with your own opinion is hard. In any case, if this doesn't pass, I'd like to see the new images you uploaded get added to the pre-existing templates, becuase they have transparency and are actually, you know, good. ~ Gunshow ^{(T, E)} 13:57, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
• I actually really like this sleek looking template; however I don't think its perfect. Like Sas said, the black background can blend in with the GTA MW's background. Also the patroller and B'crat color seems too similar. So if you can change the background to a dark gray and make the B'crat template more yellow I'll definitely change my vote to yes.

Gunshow, you need an attitude adjustment. Users are allowed to see eye to eye and agree on certain things without getting harassed. That's why we have the comments section pal - to give reasons why this template should/shouldn't be implemented. Don't bully users just because they have a differing opinion than you. Boomer8 (Contact) 06:53, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Add Reason to Delete Template - BiggestShip65 07:04, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Closed as Successful by Boomer8 (Contact) 06:57, September 1, 2016 (UTC) I've updated the Delete Template with a Reason...field? I don't know the technical term for it but when adding the Delete template to a page, all you have to do to include a reason is use {{Delete|Page is a duplicate}} or whatever reason and the template will display your reason. If you don't include a reason it will simply state, no reason given. If this gets voted down, well, you can just undo my change.

Votes

• Yes - Indep (talk) 20:03, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Boomer8 (Contact) 20:13, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes--MythHunter 007 ^Talk 13:08, August 28, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:07, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes --Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:11, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• This is very good - Indep (talk) 20:03, August 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Good idea. I like how you were able to still keep the shortened template by using the {{ }}. Keep up the work. Boomer8 (Contact) 20:13, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

New Section on Main Page

Closed as Successful by Mantiix (Contact) 10:59 August 31, 2016 (UTC) I have to say, that this is originally Indep's idea he came up with earlier. If you look at the main page some spaces are empty when you scroll down to the bottom. So Indep suggested that we should have a section dedicated to user's birthdays. I was thinking of having it headered "Community Birthdays". It would be located right under "Featured Video" and would list every user's birthday that particular month. I think it would be a nice interactive feature on the main page so I'm curious on your thoughts.

Votes

• Yes - Boomer8 (Contact) 22:12, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - MHM August 29, 2016
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 22:35, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Indep (talk) 00:59, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes --MythHunter 007 ^Talk 11:22, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - Monk ^Talk 14:40, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - --AndreyFD (talk) 15:01, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Mantiix ^Talk 15:44, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes --Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:11, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Like I said I think it would be a good idea. Boomer8 (Contact) 22:12, August 29, 2016 (UTC)
• I would want it to be approved 4 or 5th of the September, because 6th is too late, BTW Boomer got it very good, but I meant daily another bday - Indep (talk) 14:20, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Okay, Indep, this isn't the way things work - this isn't being implemented specifically for your birthday, and by revealing that you really are desperate for this to be approved before your birthday gives away the fact all you wanted was a banner alerting everyone it was your birthday. Because of that, I'm neutral, as I'm not fully convinced this is a "Indep idea for Myths Wiki". Monk ^Talk 14:40, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Same as Monk, [1] - --AndreyFD (talk) 15:01, August 30, 2016 (UTC)